771–780 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She should have retired before 2016 and let someone step up. Occupying the seat of power until you keel over at the age of 85 is a peculiar expression of ego and selfishness.
Clearly the congress at that time was acting in bad faith and would have delayed her successor being appointed, as they did with Merrick Garland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some things have no gap. Your either want the right to your own body, or a crusade to stop the murder of millions of babies. This drives most other politics.
That's a very western philosophical way of viewing it. Many eastern philosophies believe the best answer lies between the opposing positions.
Right to your own body every other week? Last name starts A-H get abortions, rest don’t?
Or maybe by race, undesirable races get genocide? Or maybe the rich ones?
It’s not a topic with much “in between”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> its hard to get much lower than srone striking Americans on foreign soil. Trump killed this American on foreign soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawar_al-Awlaki
There's a lot more horrible things happening in Yemen and absolutely nobody in the West cares. But everything is political nowadays, anything that's related to Trump gets high coverage, while there's probably somewhere like 200 000 people who have died so far in this ongoing conflict and it barely gets noticed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2014%E2%80%9... You gotta love the journalistic bias out th…
Check your facts before posting blindly about media bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.
> with integrity. What exactly do you think politics is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"
I had a much longer response typed - but deleted it when it stopped even making sense to me. "white silence is violence" googles Still no idea how that could be applied to my post - but I am most definitely white, and after a bit of introspection, can't think of anything I've constructively done to address racism outside of late-night internet posts. So whilst I'd like to think I was "non-racist" - I do now feel a bi…
The systems and histories in place we battle with are much bigger, and much older, than we are. Unless your explicit goal is to set out to change the world (which frankly is a shitty goal and usually leads to some kind of genocide), literally the best advice is "think globally, act locally", as "outdated" as that saying I suppose now is.
Except that it is especially true when what you want is positive social change. Think about the implications of someone who first implements your initial original post ("just stop and think for a sec"), and then also implements your second ("is there anything I can do here?"). That's enough. Literally that, when applied on a large scale, would change the world, in a way far more positive than riots and social justice movements.
See, humans are really terrible creatures. We have a bad habit of overcorrecting and, you know, killing millions of people in the name of an ideal. We've done it what, dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of times.
It's the difference between water carving a river, and a nuke carving a crater. The first one takes longer but is alot less destructive.
Here's my prediction: Trump will nominate a successor in the next couple weeks. McConnell will start the process, but delay the vote until after the November election. This way: If Trump wins, McConnell can say that he was entirely reasonable and consistent, and he waited until after the election to ensure that the people really wanted Trump's SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed. If Trump loses, McConnell still has the…
Why shouldn’t the Democrats goad Trump into waiting after the election to nominate by a) implying he’s afraid he’ll lose and b) whispering about sweetheart plea deals via Schumer or someone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many people from this administration ended up in jail? And how many from the last? You can feel whatever you want, but the math isn’t in your favor.
How many people were killed by wars started in the previous administration? I'll let you ponder on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed. Part of that procedure is having your party in charge of the Senate at the time of said nomination. Obama did nominate someone, he simply could not get him confirmed. That's on Obama (and Democrats more generally). Trump will also nominate someone, and because his party has a majority in the Senate, that nominee will likely be confirmed w…
Where does this end? What keeps this principle from extending to a President's entire term, as opposed to just the last year? If Democrats ever retake the Senate, why should they ever hold hearings for a single Republican judicial appointment, let alone confirm one? Should judicial appointments just sit vacant until president and Senate are from the same party? I think it's a perversion of the "advice and consent" la…
I was just thinking today about why Canada's Supreme Court isn't remotely politicized in the same way as the US. Part of it may be that we're just not as partisan, but I think the main thing is that with our parliamentary system, if the party in power has a majority—which they do the majority of the time—they can basically pass what laws they want. Of course, they generally refrain from doing deeply unpopular things since they'll pay for it at the next election, although even that does happen: eg. the Mulroney (conservative!) government implementing a 7% goods and services tax. Probably played a large part of them being out of power for a decade+ immediately following, but was great for the country fiscally from there forward.
Anyway, since the government can largely do what they want, there's much less need or reason to essentially try to enact 'legislation from the bench'. I couldn't even tell you the political leanings of our SC justices.
There are still plenty of downsides to this system of course (lack of proportional representation comes to mind), but it does appear to be more functional in a lot of ways than the US. And probably not by accident—the Canadian system was developed almost a hundred years after the US, and had it and other more recent governments as models; it was also soon after the US Civil War, which played a part in Canada adopting a strong federal system with less provincial power, relatively speaking.
Of course, it's easy to say all that. Much harder to actually enact significant reform!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think so. He could play it differently, that is, with integrity.
> with integrity. What exactly do you think politics is?
I mean, sure, you can force through a nomination now and produce a wildly lopsided court. But then the democrats might just win the senate and presidency and decide that they can add four more justices. The rules allow that, too. Is that the world you want to live in?
> According to her granddaughter Clara Spera, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...
There would seem to be precedent for this now. Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump?
None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It's all just slogans. Also: the Democrats didn't grant this to the Republicans over Scalia. The Republicans were in power in the Senate at the time and used this power to their advantage.
Yeah, this is all terrible: this is the world you get when our politics seem to be regulated by twitter. If you want this to change, get rid of cable news talk shows, and get rid of twitter. Until then, this is what you're going to have.